The Structure and Function of Collective Constructs: Implications for Multilevel Research and Theory Development

Morgeson, Frederick P.; Hofmann, David A.

doi:10.2307/259081

Cited by 612 publications

(852 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

814

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Increases in the frequency of uncivil behaviors through incivility spirals escalate the degree of incivility and can eventually create an uncivil climate within work teams. This process is consistent with the emergence of workplace climate through a series of ongoing events, as suggested by Morgeson and Hofmann [20].…”

Section: The Emergence Of Team Incivility Climatesupporting

confidence: 61%

“…However, sufficient theoretical and empirical evidence suggests the existence of incivility as a group-level construct. Morgeson and Hofmann [20], in their article explaining how a collective-level construct emerges, argued that collective actions are the results of a series of ongoing events and event cycles that create shared understandings among organizational members. Given that individuals are subject to their work environment, their perceptions and interpretations of certain events are likely to be influenced by the perceptions of others who work closely with them.…”

Section: The Emergence Of Team Incivility Climatementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Thriving Organizational Sustainability through Innovation: Incivility Climate and Teamwork

Yang

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The present study examines the association between team incivility climate and team members' perceived support for innovation. To extend findings on the negative effects of incivility (which are low intensity deviant behaviors, such as rudeness) in studies focusing on the individual level, the effects of organizational incivility are examined at the work team level. Drawing on the spiral model of incivility and the literature on teams, this study suggests that team incivility climate has a negative impact on perceived support for innovation through team members' teamwork behaviors. Using data collected from 411 subordinates on 62 work teams, the hypothesized mediation model is tested. The results show a negative effect of team incivility climate on teamwork and a positive effect of teamwork on perceived support for innovation, supporting the hypothesized negative indirect effect. Research and practical implications for organizational sustainability are discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Emergence Of Team Incivility Climatesupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: The Emergence Of Team Incivility Climatementioning

confidence: 99%

Thriving Organizational Sustainability through Innovation: Incivility Climate and Teamwork

Yang

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Future research is needed to determine the impact of the work characteristics presented in this meta-analytic review on team-level work design. Moreover, as moving to the team level creates unique constructs that may not exist at the individual level (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999), future research should investigate how characteristics of the team such as trust and cooperative norms relate to the work characteristics discussed herein.…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature.

Humphrey¹,

Nahrgang²,

Morgeson³

2007

Journal of Applied Psychology

Self Cite

1,634

1,732

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors developed and meta-analytically examined hypotheses designed to test and extend work design theory by integrating motivational, social, and work context characteristics. Results from a summary of 259 studies and 219,625 participants showed that 14 work characteristics explained, on average, 43% of the variance in the 19 worker attitudes and behaviors examined. For example, motivational characteristics explained 25% of the variance in subjective performance, 2% in turnover perceptions, 34% in job satisfaction, 24% in organizational commitment, and 26% in role perception outcomes. Beyond motivational characteristics, social characteristics explained incremental variances of 9% of the variance in subjective performance, 24% in turnover intentions, 17% in job satisfaction, 40% in organizational commitment, and 18% in role perception outcomes. Finally, beyond both motivational and social characteristics, work context characteristics explained incremental variances of 4% in job satisfaction and 16% in stress. The results of this study suggest numerous opportunities for the continued development of work design theory and practice.Keywords: work design, job design, satisfaction, performance, social support Interest in work design has a long history. Early writings focused on how the division of labor could increase worker efficiency and productivity (Babbage, 1835;Smith, 1776). The first systematic treatment of the topic was conducted in the early part of the 20th century by Gilbreth (1911) and Taylor (1911), who focused on specialization and simplification in an attempt to maximize worker efficiency. Yet, one of the problems of designing work to maximize efficiency was that it tended to result in decreased employee satisfaction, increased turnover and absenteeism, and difficulties in managing employees in simplified jobs (Hackman & Lawler, 1971).Reacting to this, researchers developed theories focusing on the motivating features of work (Hackman & Lawler, 1971;Hackman & Oldham, 1975;Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959;Turner & Lawrence, 1965). The motivational approach forwarded by these scholars has been influential over the past 30 years (Morgeson & Campion, 2003). For example, the key articles summarizing Hackman and Oldham's job characteristics model and measures have been cited nearly 2,000 times by researchers (ISI Web of Knowledge, 2006). Although the model is more than 30 years old and there are several criticisms of its key propositions and measures (Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992;Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006;Roberts & Glick, 1981;Taber & Taylor, 1990), it retains a central place in work design theory today. Yet the success of the motivational approach has had two curious effects on work design research over the past 30 years.First, it has focused research attention on a limited set of motivational work features (e.g., skill variety, autonomy). Although these are important work characteristics, other important aspects of work (such as the social environment and work context) have been neglected. As a conseq...

show abstract

“…Researchers have long struggled to understand the relationship between individuals and collectives (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). Several researchers have presented models that discuss the theoretical relationship between individual and team-level constructs (e.g., House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995;Rousseau, 1985).…”

Section: From Individual Attribute Composition To Role Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the conceptualization and measurement of constructs at collective levels of analysis require a consideration of emergent phenomena (typically arising from complex behavioral interactions) that have no lower level analogue. A considerable amount of research has sought to develop the conceptual and empirical frameworks needed address these challenges and to advance team level research (Chan, 1998;Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994;Kozlowski & Klein, 2000;Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999;Rousseau, 1985). One of the key issues identified by this research concerns the composition of collective level constructs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance.

Humphrey

Morgeson

Mannor

2009

Journal of Applied Psychology

Self Cite

236

291

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although numerous models of team performance have been articulated over the past 20 years, these models have primarily focused on the individual attribute approach to team composition. The authors utilized a role composition approach, which investigates how the characteristics of a set of role holders impact team effectiveness, to develop a theory of the strategic core of teams. Their theory suggests that certain team roles are most important for team performance and that the characteristics of the role holders in the "core" of the team are more important for overall team performance. This theory was tested in 778 teams drawn from 29 years of major league baseball (1974 -2002). Results demonstrate that although high levels of experience and job-related skill are important predictors of team performance, the relationships between these constructs and team performance are significantly stronger when the characteristics are possessed by core role holders (as opposed to non-core role holders). Further, teams that invest more of their financial resources in these core roles are able to leverage such investments into significantly improved performance. These results have implications for team composition models, as they suggest a new method for considering individual contributions to a team's success that shifts the focus onto core roles.

show abstract

The Structure and Function of Collective Constructs: Implications for Multilevel Research and Theory Development

Cited by 612 publications

References 0 publications

Thriving Organizational Sustainability through Innovation: Incivility Climate and Teamwork

Thriving Organizational Sustainability through Innovation: Incivility Climate and Teamwork

Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature.

Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About